As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Monday, March 07, 2011

Debate Between Box Boy Gage and Chris Mohr

Audio here. It is unfortunate that a lot of the debate seems to revolve around video and photographs, which we will have to wait for, but Mohr (a former investigative journalist) does a good job in the part that I have heard so far. I especially appreciated him asking Gage why they apply fireproofing to steel in high-rise construction; Gage's response was that fireproofing made them indestructible (!) in fires.

Box Boy is the usual dope. He denies significant fires in the towers, especially the South Tower. He brings up Chief Orio Palmer. He brings up "set up to fail", Max Cleland and John Farmer; I thought the idea was to discuss the towers collapse and not the freaking commission.

I do love the way he tries to frame things so he's the winner; either Mohr must explain X, Y or Z, or the debate is over. JAQ-off Jon Gold has a similar idea of what a debate consists of:

Here's a good topic for debate... should there be real justice for what happened on 9/11, and have we been denied that? Yes. I win.

Justice has not yet been brought to Osama Bin Laden, but I doubt that's what Gold is nattering on about.

194 Comments:

Twoofers will be going apeshit today to try to say this somehow "proves" whatever it is they are claiming. It does clearly show fires on the roof although I don't see how that helps the twoofer cause, but I'm sure they'll invent something. For sure, they will claim the NIST held it back as part of a "cover up."

Is this new helicopter footage really new? I'm certain I've seen the first post-collapse view from inside the helicopter broadcast once before, with that "the whole tower is down" comment. I remember it partly because I could never find it online.

Pat, the fire on the roof is mysterious quite independent of any collapse theory. How did it get started? There was another mysterious isolated fire on a high floor on the west side--you can see it in Consdemo's video as a white spot.

Given the structural importance of the hat truss, fire on the roof might be related to controlled demolition. Leaving the hat truss intact might have resulted in embarrassments such as the top block falling off the building.

Ian, if your video shows pictures of large fires, please point them out. I see a lot of smoke and little fire.

GutterBall, it does not take very much heat to make life very uncomfortable for human life. 212 F is boiling, after all, though insignificant in terms of damage to steel and concrete and paper and wood.

Smoke, too, can make life uncomfortable. Your belief that people jumping proves big fires is silly.

GutterBall, it does not take very much heat to make life very uncomfortable for human life. 212 F is boiling, after all, though insignificant in terms of damage to steel and concrete and paper and wood.

Smoke, too, can make life uncomfortable. Your belief that people jumping proves big fires is silly.

My, such squealing!

So Ian, you're admitting that you can't find pictures of big fires?

You really can't read, can you Brian? That explains why you're a failed janitor who lives with mommy and daddy...

Anyway, I will show you the big fires when you admit that you're petgoat, and as punishment, you have to admit that Laurie Van Auken is a liar too.

You're the one who wants the pictures, remember? I don't care if you see them or not because I don't care about failed janitors who lie and babble and squeal.

You also don't care if anyone believes your Uncle Steve is an engineer or not. You think 9/11 is something for hick yokels to joke about, and you think it's clever to call its victims liars. You're disgusting.

Riiiiiiiiight, goat molester. Smoke is pouring out the towers at a high rate, but there were no fires.

Have another hit off the bong, goat molester.

Prediction: Next, the goat molester will claim that because the smoke was black, the fires were close to going out by themselves. Never mind that the color of the smoke bears no relation to the intensity of the fire. FACT: Black smoke is an indication of a hydrocarbon-rich fire, not a dying fire.

You also don't care if anyone believes your Uncle Steve is an engineer or not.

Right, Uncle Steve will continue to be a successful engineer who has taught at UCLA and consulted on a number of civil engineering projects (he was called in to help take down the Embarcadero Freeway after the Loma Prieta quake) whether you believe it or not. Nobody cares about the opinions of failed janitors.

You think 9/11 is something for hick yokels to joke about, and you think it's clever to call its victims liars.

"Hick yokels"? What the hell are you talking about? Also, what victim am I calling a liar? You're the one who lies about what a dead man, Ray Downey, said.

You're disgusting.

Squeal squeal squeal! Hey Brian, did you know that Laurie Van Auken will never have her questions answered? HA HA HA HA!!!

Greg, lots of smoke doesn't mean lots of fire, as anyone knows who ever sat around a wet, failing campfire.

Yes, and we all know how much the WTC towers were soaking wet and just like a campfire.

Anyway, I expect to return home from work later today and see that Brian has wasted yet another day of his life posting babbling dumbspam about his "widows" and meatballs on forks. Please don't disappoint me, Brian.

TR, Chief Downey said he thought there were bombs in the top of WTC2. What exactly did I misrepresent about that, and why would I misrepresent what he said when the truth about what he said makes my point just fine as it is?

DK, since you're so knowledgeable about ventilation shafts and wire runs, perhaps you can make yourself useful and educate me on this: The 83rd floor blueprint shows four elevator-sized shafts labeled "SA & RA SHAFT". Can you tell me what that's for?

Greg, my argument about the campfire was a qualitative one, not a quantitative one. Lots of smoke does not necessarily mean lots of fire, as anyone with any actual experience with fires knows.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...Given the structural importance of the hat truss, fire on the roof might be related to controlled demolition. Leaving the hat truss intact might have resulted in embarrassments such as the top block falling off the building."

Really? No kidding?

What was the purpose of the hat truss?

How would failure of the hat truss result in "in embarrassments such as the top block falling off the building."

But them given the fact the elevator shafts were ripped open by the crash of the aircraft I would say they were very useless. You did notice the big ass airplanes that hit, right, moron.

So you see Brian, you being my and everyone's intercultural inferior would never think of that issue. And why you are a janitor now and will never be anything better. So make yourself of use and scrub a floor.

So can you imagine being Brian Good and having to live with a brain that is so under powered compared to everyone else you can't even get truthers to respect you? and these people are very much Americas low life kings.

GutterBall, NIST says the purpose of the hat truss was to support the antenna, but since they blame the truss for transferring column instability from one region of the building to another, it clearly had a macrostructural purpose as well.

The hat truss would aid the top part falling off the building because it tended to make the top part a monolithic block, as the tipping top of the south tower shows. Any asymmetry to the collapse and, with the aid of the hat truss, the low side tends to pull the high side over.

Greg, the smoke came from burning desks, filing cabinets, computers, carpets, and drapes. Where did you think it came from?

DK, what makes you say the "SA and RA SHAFT" was supposed to stop smoke? How do you stop smoke with a shaft?

DK, the law of conservation of angular momentum says that once the top block of WTC2 started rotating, it should have continued to rotate until it fell off the building unless it was stopped by an imposed force.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...GutterBall, NIST says the purpose of the hat truss was to support the antenna, but since they blame the truss for transferring column instability from one region of the building to another, it clearly had a macrostructural purpose as well."

No, the hat truss had no "macrostructural purpose"--you bullshitter--because it was not designed to bear the building's gravitational load.

NIST wrote, "...The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse." -- NCSTAR 1, page xxxvii

Thus, we can see that you're blowing smoke up our collective ass. The hat truss had only limited influence over the core, to say nothing of the amount of time necessary for the initiation of the collapse. It could not have prevented the structure from "tipping" because that was not its intended purpose. Additionally, a cursory glance at the schematic of the hat truss assembly, found on page 11 of NCSTAR 1, proves the hat truss had no influence over the heavily damaged corner columns or the floor truss assemblies where the collapse initiation occured.

The goat molester continues to babble and confirm his dishonesty, and scribbles, "...The hat truss would aid the top part falling off the building because it tended to make the top part a monolithic block, as the tipping top of the south tower shows. Any asymmetry to the collapse and, with the aid of the hat truss, the low side tends to pull the high side over."

False.

The hat truss was integrated into the structure well above the point of impact, which was the point of failure.

NIST continues, "...In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its decent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and south side of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel." -- NCSTAR 1, page xxxviii.

Thus, contrary to your dishonest, deceptive bullshit, the hat truss had no influence on the heavily damaged corner columns and floor truss assemblies, nor could it have prevented collapse initiation.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...DK, what makes you say the 'SA and RA SHAFT' was supposed to stop smoke? How do you stop smoke with a shaft?"

First of all, the correct term is "SA and RA plenum", not "shaft". As I recall, it's part of the smoke venting system. This preventative measure allowed to building to clear itself of smoke, provided the system was activated by the PAPD, which allowed the buildings' occupants (the so-called live load) to better navigate their way to safety. Furthermore, the SA and RA plenum did not function on 11 September 2001, because it was damaged by aircraft impact. Thus, any reference to this building feature is irrelevant.

But that's neither here nor there. You have offered not one iota of evidence to support your claim that there was little or no fire in WTC 1 or 2.

NIST wrote, "...The fourth major structural subsystem was located from the 107th floor to the roof of each tower. It was a set of steel braces, collectively referred to as the "hat truss." (Figure 1-7) Its primary purpose had been to support a tall antenna atop each tower, although only WTC 1 had one installed. The hat truss provided additional support connections among the core columns and between the core and perimeter columns, providing additional means for load redistribution." -- NCSTAR 1, page 10.

Thus, we can see that the hat truss "provided additional support connections among the core columns" via the perimeter columns. The hat truss assembly had no influence over the heavily damaged corner columns or the floor truss assemblies.

Notice that the hat truss assembly was located "from the 107th floor to the roof of each tower," which was well above the point of impact and collapse initiation.

GutterBall, I never said the hat truss bore the building's gravitational load. But NIST does. On p. 144 of NCSTAR1 they say "As the fires continued to heat areas of the core ... the columns weakened and shortened and began to transfer their loads to the exterior walls through the hat truss...."

NCSTAR1 has many references to the redistribution of loads by the hat truss. It could not have served this macrostructural role if it did not have a macrostructural function.

Your claim that the hat truss "could not have prevented the structure from 'tipping'" does not refute my point that the hat truss would have aided the process of tipping the entire top block together. Its location several stories above the impact zone does not diminish this this function in the least.

I never claimed that the hat truss could have prevented collapse initiation.

GutterBall, the blueprints say "SA & RA SHAFT". If that's incorrect, take it up with Leslie Robertson. I'm sure he'll be fascinated.

I didn't claim there was little or no fire. I have challenged people here to show pictures of severe fires after the jet fuel burned off, and so far those pictures are as scarce as independent engineers who will endorse the NIST report.

Look at UtterFail, grading me F for his own ignorance of Supply Air and Return Air. Pathetic.

That's right, liar, simply ignore the direct quotes I provided from the NIST Report that prove you're babbling and misleading the reader as concerns the hat truss and it's intended function.

Again, all you offer is your worthless opinion, which is NOT evidence.

The goat molester quote mines the NIST Report and lies, "...GutterBall, I never said the hat truss bore the building's gravitational load. But NIST does. On p. 144 of NCSTAR1 they say 'As the fires continued to heat areas of the core ... the columns weakened and shortened and began to transfer their loads to the exterior walls through the hat truss....'"

That's not what the NIST Report says--you liar.

NIST wrote, "...As the fires continued to heat areas of the core that were without insulation, the columns weakened and shortened and began to transfer their loads to the exterior walls through the hat truss until the south wall started to bow inward due to the inward pull of the sagging floors. At about 100 min, approximately 20 percent of the core loads had been transfered by the hat truss to the exterior walls due to weakening of the core, the loads on the north and south walls had each increased by about 10 percent, and those on the east and west wall had about a 25 percent increase. The increased loads on the east and west walls were due to their relatively higher stiffness compared to the impact damaged north wall and bowed south walls." -- NCSTAR 1, page 144.

I can see why you quote mined page 144 of the NIST Report, because it doesn't support your thoroughly dishonest propaganda.

Thus, most of the gravitational load was redistributed through the east and west walls, not the hat truss, which still distributed its load to the walls themselves for a total of 55% cumulative increase to the load bearing walls. The hat truss only prevented the core columns from collapse for a short period of time.

The goat molester continues to lie, "...I never claimed that the hat truss could have prevented collapse initiation. "

Then why did you write the following at 19:22?

"...Given the structural importance of the hat truss, fire on the roof might be related to controlled demolition. Leaving the hat truss intact might have resulted in embarrassments such as the top block falling off the building."

This implies that the hat truss would prevent a progressive collapse, so "controlled demolition" was necessary to ensure the building's destruction. The "top block falling off the building" is not defined as progressive collapse.

Hence, we can see that all you offer to support your insane ideas is your worthless opinion, and your worthless opinion alone.

No they don't, bullshitter.The correct term is "SA and RA plenum." And the purpose of the plenum, as I stated earlier, was a preventative measure that allowed to building to clear itself of smoke in the event of a major fire.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...NCSTAR1 has many references to the redistribution of loads by the hat truss. It could not have served this macrostructural role if it did not have a macrostructural function."

The NIST Report is clear, and states that the hat truss, "a feature atop each tower," was intended to support a television antenna, not the core, corner columns, floor truss assemblies or the peripheral columns.

"...Your claim that the hat truss "could not have prevented the structure from 'tipping'" does not refute my point that the hat truss would have aided the process of tipping the entire top block together."

The hat truss had no "macrostructural role" whatsoever. That the hat truss reditributed the cores load is called, in the engineering world, an incidental (or unintentional function), not a so-called "macrostructural role." The NIST Report is clear: The hat trusses "primary purpose had been to support a tall antenna atop each tower"--nothing more, nothing less.

The goat molester scribbles, "...The hat truss would aid the top part falling off the building because it tended to make the top part a monolithic block, as the tipping top of the south tower shows. Any asymmetry to the collapse and, with the aid of the hat truss, the low side tends to pull the high side over."

False.

The force of each impact with the floor below was much greater than the horizontal momentum of the descending upper section of the building. Thus, the horizontal momentum prevented the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. Thus, the descending upper portion of the building maintained its center of gravity within the building's footprint.

GutterBall, what makes you think I ignored your datadump quotes? I don't comment on irrelevancies, except to point out that they're irrelevant.

The NIST report shows on p. 144, as I demonstrated, that the hat truss is involved in mediating gravity loads to various columnar components of the structure. You are babbling about something you clearly don't understand.

The hat truss, in serving to maintain the structural integrity of the top block (as we saw in WTC2), also served to aid the top block falling off the building, as the WTC2 top block would have done had it not been blown up first. In WTC1 the drop of the antenna and the telescoping of the block before the impact zone even began to fail suggests that it too was subject to controlled demolition in the first few seconds of collapse.

The fact that lots of smoke does not mean lots of fire does not mean I'm claiming there was little fire. I challenge you to demonstrate that there was a lot of fire. Aside from pictures of the 8-minute jet-fuel flares, I haven't seen them.

You're lying about the blueprints and didn't even bother to check. Floor 83 clearly says "S.A. & R.A. SHAFT". It has nothing to do with smoke clearing. It's for Supply Air and Return Air ducts.

The NIST report clearly describes the macrostructural role of the hat truss in terms of transferring loads from the core to the perimeter.

Greg, I am not an expert on how many desks produce how much smoke. I suggest that you direct your questions to the fire protection engineers at AE911truth (one of whom, Scott Grainger, is licensed to practice in 9 states).

The goat molester babbles, "...The hat truss, in serving to maintain the structural integrity of the top block (as we saw in WTC2), also served to aid the top block falling off the building, as the WTC2 top block would have done had it not been blown up first. In WTC1 the drop of the antenna and the telescoping of the block before the impact zone even began to fail suggests that it too was subject to controlled demolition in the first few seconds of collapse."

That paragraph is proof positive that you're an idiot.

The hat truss could never "maintain the structural integrity of the top block", nor could it have prevented the collapse of the structures.

NIST wrote, "...The fourth major structural subsystem was located from the 107th floor to the roof of each tower. It was a set of steel braces, collectively referred to as the "hat truss."

Global collapse didn't initiate at the 107th floor. The collapse initiated at the point of impact--the 96th floor in the case of WTC 1 and the 81st floor in the case of WTC2.

FAIL

The goat molester continues to babble, "...The NIST report clearly describes the macrostructural role of the hat truss in terms of transferring loads from the core to the perimeter."

Repeating the same brain-dead nonsense over-and-over-and-over again, doesn't make it true, asshole.

Again, the hat truss assembly had no influence over the heavily damaged corner columns or the floor truss assemblies.

The hat truss had no "macrostructural role" whatsoever. That the hat truss redistributed the cores load is called, in the engineering world, an incidental (or unintentional function), not a so-called "macrostructural role." The NIST Report is clear: The hat trusses "primary purpose had been to support a tall antenna atop each tower"--nothing more, nothing less.

The NIST Report is also clear about the hat trusses ability to abate collapse. It had a minimal influence over the core columns and the core columns alone. The hat truss could never prevent a global collapse of the structures.

Greg, I don't need to be an expert to look at the photographic evidence and at NIST's lack of physical evidence of big fires and conclude that the case for big fires in the WTC is very weak.

So you look at a building engulfed in smoke (a product of fire), and you have an understanding (I assume) that there must be a logical ratio of smoke to fire, and you don't think that the photographic evidence of the smoke in all three buildings is proof that there had to be a large area of the building with active fires. YET, with a complete lack of any evidence that explosives or thermite was used you are willing to swallow that theory with ease.

You need to donate your brain to The Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy.

M Greg, the human organism is quite sensitive to temperature. Temps of 150 F can cause death. Temps of 150 F are not damaging to buildings or to sautee pans.

GutterBall, pray tell, how did the hat truss not help maintain the structural integrity of the top block? NIST maintains that the hat truss was so strong that heated core columns experiencing thermal expansion were restrained by the truss, and so suffered increased loads as the columns "weakened and shortened" . See p. 144 NCSTAR1

Note also the FEMA report, Chapter 2: "This outrigger truss system provided stiffening of the frame for wind resistance, mobilized some of the dead weight supported by the core to provide stability against wind-induced overturning, and also provided direct support for the transmission tower on WTC 1."

The place that collapse initiated has no bearing on whether the hat truss would have maintained structural integrity of the top block. And the fact that the antenna fell through the hat truss before collapse "initiated" at the 96th floor (according to you) shows that the hat truss failed first.

Your babble about "corner columns or the floor truss assemblies" has nothing to do with the hat truss.

You claim the hat truss had "minimal influence over the core columns" but according to NIST (p. 144) when the south perimeter columns failed, the hat truss imposed their loads "to the thermally weakened cores through the hat truss and to east and west walls through the spandrels."

I never said the hat truss could prevent a global collapse. I said the hat truss was key to the structural integrity of the top block, and that in doing so it increased the threat that the top block would fall off the building.

Greg, what makes you think I swallow any theory with ease? I haven't swallowed anything. Anyone who has struggled to ignite a campfire from wet wood in the rain knows that a whole lot of smoke does not mean a whole lot of fire.

Greg, what makes you think I swallow any theory with ease? I haven't swallowed anything. Anyone who has struggled to ignite a campfire from wet wood in the rain knows that a whole lot of smoke does not mean a whole lot of fire.

Why are you avoiding my question? How much of the building do you feel would be the minimal amount needed to create the amount of smoke that is seen in the videos and pictures?

"...The place that collapse initiated has no bearing on whether the hat truss would have maintained structural integrity of the top block. And the fact that the antenna fell through the hat truss before collapse "initiated" at the 96th floor (according to you) shows that the hat truss failed first."

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, goat molester?

You've argued, REPEATEDLY, that the North tower's descending upper block disintegrated in mid air, and therefore, couldn't have pulverized the building.

Now, you're arguing "the hat truss would have maintained structural integrity of the top block."

LOL!

You're nothing but a double-talking liar, psychopath and quintessential asshole.

Greg, why don't you do the math yourself? If six floors had fires, and if three or four of them can be assumed to have absorbed most of the jet fuel that was not burned up in initial fireballs, you can make a guess at how much of those three floors were burned up with the jet fuel in the first few minutes.

Then, knowing that NIST tells us that office fires burn in one place only 20 minutes, and allowing for the 40 minutes and 90 minutes available, you can make certain guesses about how much floor space was involved. Of course it's not reasonable to suppose that WTC1 took 90 minutes to burn up what burned up in WTC2 in 40 minutes, so we should assume that only half of the available office fuel on those three floors outside the initial jet-fuel area was consumed in WTC2.

There is no contradiction between 1) pointing out that the top block of WTC1 came apart before the collapse zone started to fail and 2) arguing the hat truss would have maintained structural integrity of the top block had it not been destroyed as the first stage of the collapse.

Greg, why don't you do the math yourself? If six floors had fires, and if three or four of them can be assumed to have absorbed most of thejet fuel that was not burned up in initial fireballs, you can make a guess at how much of those three floors were burned up with the jet fuel in the first few minutes.

Now you are back tracking. Before you said that office furniture was likely on fire.

And if I'm doing the math I would say every floor spewing smoke had fires on it.

In fact, I've forgotten more about conditional logic than you'll ever know.

In the world of computer science and mathematics conditional logic is the realm of control flow, boolean conditions, branch predication, preprocessor logic (macros) and logical operators (&&, || and !), etc.

In the world of debate, and in terms of your nonsense, it's illogical (not to mention intellectually dishonest) to claim to have made use of conditional logic if you have failed to previously establish the conditions upon which you've based your idiotic argument. To do so after the fact is pure weasel "logic."

UtterFail, maybe it's because you've forgotten so much about conditional logic that you are a) unemployable b)angry c) irrational and d) wrong.

I said the North tower's upper block disintegrated in mid air, because that's what the video shows.

I also said the hat truss WOULD HAVE have maintained structural integrity of the top block IF it had not been destroyed as the first element of the collapse.

The IF clause is the condition. There is no contradiction between the two statements.

Greg, who's right and why? Well in the legal world the issue generally is decided on the basis of quality of argument.

So on one side we've got a guy who says lots of smoke means lots of fire, and who views "doing the math" as opining that "every floor spewing smoke had fires on it".

On the other we've got a guy who notes that under some conditions very small fires can produce an awful lot of smoke, and who presents an analytical method based on NIST's scientific data (office fires burn 20 minutes before all fuel is consumed) for determining just how much of the floor area was on fire.

There will of course be more than one answer, depending on the assumptions. Let's assume that on three central floors the jet fuel covered A) 1/3 of the floor or B) 1/2 of the floor and that all of the available fuel in that zone burned up in the jet fuel fires in less than ten minutes.

Let's also assume that by the time the north tower came down, either a) all the available fuel beyond the jet fuel zone had been consumed or b) half the available fuel had been consumed.

The smallest fires occur in case Bb, and there we get 8.25 thousand square feet of floor burning at any given time, 1/16 of the total floor area area--a space about 50 feet square burning on each of the three floors at any given time (after the jet fuel burned off).

The largest fires occur in case Aa, and then we get 22 K square feet burning at any given time, 1/6 of the total floor area--a space 85 feet square on each floor at any given time.

"...UtterFail, maybe it's because you've forgotten so much about conditional logic that you are a) unemployable b)angry c) irrational and d) wrong."

Making things up again, goat molester? Poor goat molester, he's jealous because I have a family and a career. Poor baby.

Perhaps one day you can get togethger with Willie Rod an have a "family." And with a little work, perhaps someday you'll graduate from junior college--but I rather doubt it.

"...I said the North tower's upper block disintegrated in mid air, because that's what the video shows."

False.

You say a lot of things, goat molester. And 99.99% of the time, you're either lying or wrong.

The upper block of the North tower didn't disintegrate, no matter how many times you repeat that self-serving lie.

"...I also said the hat truss WOULD HAVE have maintained structural integrity of the top block IF it had not been destroyed as the first element of the collapse."

No, you said no such thing. You said "might"--you lying weasel. In addition, you've offered not one iota of evidence to support the idea that says the towers were destroyed by "controlled demolition," and you never will. You have nothing definitive to say about the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, because you have no ideas of your own. Instead you babble like a fool.

"...The IF clause is the condition. There is no contradiction between the two statements."

The "IF clause" was never proposed. You invented it after you'd were caught talking out of both sides of your mealy mouth.

The north top block came apart, as videos from the north clearly show. The antenna drop shows that it lost its integrity before the roof even began to fall.

I didn't say "might" about the role of the hat truss in maintaining structural integrity. I said "might" about the possibility of the top block falling off the building. You can't even search a thread competently.

I've repeatedly provided much evidence for controlled demolition--symmetry, squibs, thermitic residues, molten steel, speed of collapse, totality of collapse, pulverization of the concrete, reports from witnesses of sounds and sights of explosions, the initial completely symmetrical destruction of the hat truss, and the inability of the official reports to explain these phenomena. You're blind.

The "if clause" is present in "had it not been destroyed", which is the same as "if it had not been destroyed". You're blind and stupid.

Greg, the rood fires deserve an explanation because they are a mystery. A good hypothesis does not leave observed phenomena unexplained. Given that the precisely symmetrical failure of the hat truss seems indicated by the antenna drop, investigation of all associated phenomena seems justified.

"...The north top block came apart, as videos from the north clearly show. The antenna drop shows that it lost its integrity before the roof even began to fall."

More lies, Pinocchio?

As NIST pointed out, the "antenna drop" was the direct result of the failure of the core columns, not the disintegration of the top block.

"...I've repeatedly provided much evidence for controlled demolition--symmetry, squibs, thermitic residues, molten steel, speed of collapse, totality of collapse, pulverization of the concrete, reports from witnesses of sounds and sights of explosions, the initial completely symmetrical destruction of the hat truss, and the inability of the official reports to explain these phenomena."

Never mind that every item on your pathetic list has been thoroughly debunked.

The only thing you've proven with that idiotic list is your dishonesty, scientific illiteracy, and utter insanity.

GutterBall, your inability to recognize that "failure of the core columns" in such a manner as to cause completely symmetrical destruction of the hat truss and thus the antenna drop represents disintegration of the top block only shows your incompetence.

None of the items on the list have been debunked. Show me one that has.

It must be very frustrating for someone who claims superior intellect to be pwned again and again and again by an unemployed janitor. Maybe if you go back to Texas you'll find some unemployed janitors you can bully. Clearly you're not equipped for silicon gulch.

The idiot scribbles, "...GutterBall, your inability to recognize that "failure of the core columns" in such a manner as to cause completely symmetrical destruction of the hat truss and thus the antenna drop represents disintegration of the top block only shows your incompetence."

More stupidity, psychopath?

The NIST Report reads in part, "...In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground."

"...It must be very frustrating for someone who claims superior intellect to be pwned again and again and again by an unemployed janitor. Maybe if you go back to Texas you'll find some unemployed janitors you can bully. Clearly you're not equipped for silicon gulch."

Nice job of quotespam having nothing to do with the issue. The "fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections" fable has nothing to do with the destruction of the hat truss before that happened.

You haven't debunked anything.

I feel sorry for you. Either your wife and children know you're bullshit or they don't. I pity you either way.

Greg, pray tell. What caused the roof fires when the jet fuel was 12 stories below?

The fire on the roof was caused by the spreading of the fire were the plane crashed. The fuel ignited the several thousand flammable things in the building (which you admit happened: Greg, the smoke came from burning desks, filing cabinets, computers, carpets, and drapes. Where did you think it came from?) and the fire spread up to the roof.

Greg, how did the fire spread 12 stories to the roof, defeating firestop construction? Since NIST was interested in fire safety, shouldn't they somewhere in their 10,000 pages have studied this issue carefully to find out why it happened so it can be prevented from happening in the future?

If you think office fires migrated 12 floors in an hour and a half, then you should be calling for an investigation of exactly how this happened, because that is probably the question of all the questions about the WTC fires that is most generally applicable to high-rise fire safety.

Greg, how did the fire spread 12 stories to the roof, defeating firestop construction?

I am not a fire engineer. Are you? Can you describe firestop construction and any flaws it may have without googling the term?

And don't act like you want an investigation for fire safety. NIST's report on building seven was for fire and building safety. Are you satisfied with their report regarding fire safety and building safety? If not, why?

I'm not a fire engineer. I want a fire engineer's explanation of how fires on the 96th floor caused fires on the roof just an hour and a half later. There are supposed to be firestops in highrise buildings, there is no fuel in the elevator shaft or the stairwells. So how did it happen? It's a mystery.

I have lived and worked in highrise buildings, and I know people who live and work in highrise buildings. I have as much interest in highrise fire safety as any citizen.

With respect to the rooftop fire, it appears that NIST failed its mission to improve fire safety if it failed to explain how the fire propagated from ten stories below, and failed to propose means of preventing this in the future. Their investigation would thus appear to be incomplete and should be reopened until the rootop fire is explained.

Oh I know! Flaming debris from WTC2 flew up onto the roof of WTC1. Same as at WTC7! ---SARCASM--

You have to realize, Brian is not much of a thinker, he has zero rational skills so he need NIST to tell him what happened. unlike the rest of us who know fire can and has caused building to collapse and see no logical explanation on how or even why do a controlled demolition.

Like any rational person would ask why would anyone doing a controlled demolition set fires on the roof? After all collapse by it's very definition need to start from much lower down. So this anomaly hunting is just desperate grasp at straws by a very stupid man trying to prove something that makes no sense at all.

The fires didn't start on the roofs you dillhole, they rose to the roof from the floors below. Fires don't follow your rules, they seek out fuel wherever they can get it.

And you didn't answer the question. Why do YOU need to know the answer. There is nothing you can do with the information. As long as people who create fire safety codes, equipment, ect. understand the issue, and likewise, don't have any complaints concerns with what NIST has put out, why do you need to know?

Ian, any idiot can explain the tides to Bill O'Reilly. For me to be too dumb to understand the explanation there has to be an explanation. None of you who claim the roof fires are not a mystery can explain how they happened. A sample answer: Nobody would set the roof on fire in CD so who cares?

How did a fire start on the roof ten stories above the jet fuel? I'm getting to the point where it seems my facetious answer (flaming debris from tower two) is the best one. So how was flaming debris from tower two deposited on the roof of tower one, which was six feet higher than the roof of tower two?

Nothing, goat molester. Absolutely nothing. After all, how could a flunky and an habitual liar be an English major?

"...Nice job of quotespam having nothing to do with the issue. The "fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections" fable has nothing to do with the destruction of the hat truss before that happened."

And any idiot can explain how fire works to you, but you're so dumb you couldn't even cut it as a janitor, so of course you won't understand.

Normal people will understand and move on with their lives, while you'll continue to squeal and babble about the same nonsense again and again and again.

How did a fire start on the roof ten stories above the jet fuel? I'm getting to the point where it seems my facetious answer (flaming debris from tower two) is the best one. So how was flaming debris from tower two deposited on the roof of tower one, which was six feet higher than the roof of tower two?

See what I mean? Stuff like this is why Shyam Sunder is an expert and a successful scientist and you're a failed janitor. He understands things. You don't.

"...Nice job of quotespam having nothing to do with the issue. The "fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections" fable has nothing to do with the destruction of the hat truss before that happened."

And, once again, we see another example of the goat molester's con game.

When I present information from the NIST Report, the information is a "fable" and to be discarded as "quotespam [SIC]."

On the other hand, when the NIST agrees with the goat molester's propaganda and lies, the NIST Report is true.

UtterFail, the white paper of 2/3/64 says that the towers as designed could take an impact from a 707 at 600 mph. We have already discussed this.

So you are maintaining that hot air rising breached the fireproofing around the elevator shafts and ignited fires on the roof? How did it do that?

Ian, I know just fine how fire works, thank you. It needs fuel, air, and heat. You seem to think that drywall and smoke can make fire. You're wrong.

Shyam Sunder is not a successful scientist. He's been exposed as a gutless hack with no principles, and will go down in history for it.

Greg, you have not explained how a fire can climb ten floors of elevator shaft when there's nothing in there to burn and there's no air flow. An elevator shaft choked with dead end smoke can not burn.

GutterBall, the NIST report has lots of information in it. It also has a lot of speculations that are contrary to the evidence, and the notion that a monolithic top block fell at freefall is one of them.

For you to equate the citing of those two very different aspects of the report is really dumb.

The goat molester bald-faced lies, "....UtterFail, the white paper of 2/3/64 says that the towers as designed could take an impact from a 707 at 600 mph."

No, it doesn't, liar.

Where's your evidence?

"...GutterBall, the NIST report has lots of information in it. It also has a lot of speculations that are contrary to the evidence, and the notion that a monolithic top block fell at freefall is one of them."

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, squirrel bait?

You haven't presented evidence. In fact, you've given us your worthless opinion. The opinion of a failed janitor, sex stalker, homosexual degenerate and high school drop out isn't evidence.

Shyam Sunder is not a successful scientist. He's been exposed as a gutless hack with no principles, and will go down in history for it.

You forgot "just you wait, gentlemen!", you know, like how you told everyone at DU that your idiotic "meatball on a fork" scribbles would be accepted at an engineering journal. Has that happened yet, Brian?

Nothing is funnier than your bitter outbursts at a world that ignores you, Brian. Dr. Sunder will continue to be a respected and successful scientist. You will continue to be a failure at everything you do. Sorry.

UtterFail, the white paper of 2/3/64 says that the towers as designed could take an impact from a 707 at 600 mph. It says so in City in the Sky. We already went over this.

I have presented a lot of evidence. I have cited the specific sections of the NIST report that show that only 3 of their 236 steel samples show heating above 480 F, and those three do not show evidence of sustained heating above 600 C.

Ian, I never said anything about any scribblings being accepted at an engineering journal. Where do you get these silly ideas?

Dr. Sunder is not a respected scientist. What have you heard from him lately? He's as washed up as Willie Rodriguez.

"...UtterFail, the white paper of 2/3/64 says that the towers as designed could take an impact from a 707 at 600 mph. It says so in City in the Sky. We already went over this."

And you lied, as you always lie.

You simply ignored NIST's explanation, which is found on page 55--and I quote:

"...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, that you're a liar who cherry picks the NIST Report.

"...I have presented a lot of evidence. I have cited the specific sections of the NIST report that show that only 3 of their 236 steel samples show heating above 480 F, and those three do not show evidence of sustained heating above 600 C."

Yes, and once again, you cite the NIST Report when it suits your propaganda and then ignore all evidence the NIST Report presents that refutes your propaganda.

Why did you ignore the data from the VALIDATED fire modeling software simulations that prove the structural steel experienced temperatures in excess of 700 degrees F?

Ian, I never said anything about any scribblings being accepted at an engineering journal. Where do you get these silly ideas?

I'm just rephrasing what you wrote at DU about "meatball on a fork". Everyone there laughed at you too.

Dr. Sunder is not a respected scientist. What have you heard from him lately? He's as washed up as Willie Rodriguez.

You're right Brian, he's only a professor of econ, finance, and accounting at Yale. What a failure! Dr. Sunder would be a success if he lived with his parents, had no job, and spent every waking hour babbling about his sexual desire for Willie Rodriguez at various internet sites.

It really bothers you that your life is such an utter failure, doesn't it? You really hate me for being smart, successful, popular, and handsome, huh?

"...Who cares? Just some asshole from San Francisco. See, he admitted it in the previous post. And Willie's crack research team has unmasked him. I heard he used to be a janitor and he has a gay crush on Willie and he flipped out when Willie got married. That would explain a lot, wouldn't it? He has a hardon for Kevin Barrett 'cause he has a bad case of PhD-envy and microphone-envy."

UtterFail, NIST's poo-pooing of the 1963-4 study shows that, as I said, such a study was done. Your claim that it was not done is a lie. NIST's claim that they were "unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method" carries no weight in light of the fact that they found no evidence of explosives either, but admit they never tested for explosive residue. So how do we know they looked for the documentation?"

How were the software sims validated? Why won't NIST provide the visualizations from the sims so experts can examine them? You do know what GIGO means, right? A software sim is only as accurate and honest as its input data.

I ignore the software sims because they are not confirmed by physical samples or by empirical tests.

Ian, where did you get the idea that NIST's Dr. Shyam Sunder is a professor at Yale? You're not very bright, are you?

Oh and there's GutterBall, hypocritically cherry-picking the data at a Jews-did-9/11 website.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...UtterFail, NIST's poo-pooing of the 1963-4 study shows that, as I said, such a study was done. Your claim that it was not done is a lie. NIST's claim that they were "unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method" carries no weight in light of the fact that they found no evidence of explosives either, but admit they never tested for explosive residue. So how do we know they looked for the documentation?"

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard in my life. There's no evidence for the presence of explosives. Your comment is nothing more than a naked attempt to cover up your cherry picking and lying.

"...How were the software sims validated? Why won't NIST provide the visualizations from the sims so experts can examine them? You do know what GIGO means, right? A software sim is only as accurate and honest as its input data."

The visualizations from the modeling software are included in the NIST Report--your continued lying notwithstanding. Furthermore, NIST's scientists and engineers ARE THE EXPERTS--you fucking idiot. The modeling software is VALIDATED by rigorous testing. The annealing data itself was VALIDATED by the fire trajectory models.

In any case, who cares what you think? You've never used simulation software and you know nothing about the subject; thus, the dishonest bleating of a high school dropout isn't worth the ASCII characters and bandwidth you waste to post it.

"...I ignore the software sims because they are not confirmed by physical samples or by empirical tests."

The software simulations were required precisely because there were no samples that survived the conflagration or they were lost in the clean up effort--you fucking idiot.

And, once again, you're lying. You ignored the software simulations for the same reason that you ignore all the remaining evidence that proves your conspiracy theory is false. You cherry pick the data for the same reason any lying propagandist ignores relevant data: You're lying and misleading the reader.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...UtterFail, NIST's poo-pooing of the 1963-4 study shows that, as I said, such a study was done. Your claim that it was not done is a lie. NIST's claim that they were "unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method" carries no weight in light of the fact that they found no evidence of explosives either, but admit they never tested for explosive residue. So how do we know they looked for the documentation?"

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard in my life. There's no evidence for the presence of explosives. Your comment is nothing more than a naked attempt to cover up your cherry picking and lying.

"...How were the software sims validated? Why won't NIST provide the visualizations from the sims so experts can examine them? You do know what GIGO means, right? A software sim is only as accurate and honest as its input data."

The visualizations from the modeling software are included in the NIST Report--your continued lying notwithstanding. Furthermore, NIST's scientists and engineers ARE THE EXPERTS--you fucking idiot. The modeling software is VALIDATED by rigorous testing. The annealing data itself was VALIDATED by the fire trajectory models.

In any case, who cares what you think? You've never used simulation software and you know nothing about the subject; thus, the dishonest bleating of a high school dropout isn't worth the ASCII characters and bandwidth you waste to post it.

"...I ignore the software sims because they are not confirmed by physical samples or by empirical tests."

The software simulations were required precisely because there were no samples that survived the conflagration or they were lost in the clean up effort--you fucking idiot.

And, once again, you're lying. You ignored the software simulations for the same reason that you ignore all the remaining evidence that proves your conspiracy theory is false. You cherry pick the data for the same reason any lying propagandist ignores relevant data: You're lying and misleading the reader.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...UtterFail, NIST's poo-pooing of the 1963-4 study shows that, as I said, such a study was done. Your claim that it was not done is a lie. NIST's claim that they were "unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method" carries no weight in light of the fact that they found no evidence of explosives either, but admit they never tested for explosive residue. So how do we know they looked for the documentation?"

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard in my life. There's no evidence for the presence of explosives. Your comment is nothing more than a naked attempt to cover up your cherry picking and lying.

"...How were the software sims validated? Why won't NIST provide the visualizations from the sims so experts can examine them? You do know what GIGO means, right? A software sim is only as accurate and honest as its input data."

The visualizations from the modeling software are included in the NIST Report--your continued lying notwithstanding. Furthermore, NIST's scientists and engineers ARE THE EXPERTS--you fucking idiot. The modeling software is VALIDATED by rigorous testing. The annealing data itself was VALIDATED by the fire trajectory models.

In any case, who cares what you think? You've never used simulation software and you know nothing about the subject; thus, the dishonest bleating of a high school dropout isn't worth the ASCII characters and bandwidth you waste to post it.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...UtterFail, NIST's poo-pooing of the 1963-4 study shows that, as I said, such a study was done. Your claim that it was not done is a lie. NIST's claim that they were "unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method" carries no weight in light of the fact that they found no evidence of explosives either, but admit they never tested for explosive residue. So how do we know they looked for the documentation?"

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard in my life. There's no evidence for the presence of explosives. Your comment is nothing more than a naked attempt to cover up your cherry picking and lying.

"...How were the software sims validated? Why won't NIST provide the visualizations from the sims so experts can examine them? You do know what GIGO means, right? A software sim is only as accurate and honest as its input data."

The visualizations from the modeling software are included in the NIST Report--your continued lying notwithstanding. Furthermore, NIST's scientists and engineers ARE THE EXPERTS--you fucking idiot. The modeling software is VALIDATED by rigorous testing. The annealing data itself was VALIDATED by the fire trajectory models.

In any case, who cares what you think? You've never used simulation software and you know nothing about the subject; thus, the dishonest bleating of a high school dropout isn't worth the ASCII characters and bandwidth you waste to post it.

"...I ignore the software sims because they are not confirmed by physical samples or by empirical tests."

The software simulations were required precisely because there were no samples that survived the conflagration or they were lost in the clean up effort--you fucking idiot.

And, once again, you're lying. You ignored the software simulations for the same reason that you ignore all the remaining evidence that proves your conspiracy theory is false. You cherry pick the data for the same reason any lying propagandist ignores relevant data: You're lying and misleading the reader.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...UtterFail, NIST's poo-pooing of the 1963-4 study shows that, as I said, such a study was done. Your claim that it was not done is a lie. NIST's claim that they were "unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method" carries no weight in light of the fact that they found no evidence of explosives either, but admit they never tested for explosive residue. So how do we know they looked for the documentation?"

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard in my life. There's no evidence for the presence of explosives. Your comment is nothing more than a naked attempt to cover up your cherry picking and lying.

"...How were the software sims validated? Why won't NIST provide the visualizations from the sims so experts can examine them? You do know what GIGO means, right? A software sim is only as accurate and honest as its input data."

The visualizations from the modeling software are included in the NIST Report--your continued lying notwithstanding. Furthermore, NIST's scientists and engineers ARE THE EXPERTS--you fucking idiot. The modeling software is VALIDATED by rigorous testing. The annealing data itself was VALIDATED by the fire trajectory models.

In any case, who cares what you think? You've never used simulation software and you know nothing about the subject; thus, the dishonest bleating of a high school dropout isn't worth the ASCII characters and bandwidth you waste to post it.

The goat molester prevaricates, "...UtterFail, NIST's poo-pooing of the 1963-4 study shows that, as I said, such a study was done. Your claim that it was not done is a lie. NIST's claim that they were "unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method" carries no weight in light of the fact that they found no evidence of explosives either, but admit they never tested for explosive residue. So how do we know they looked for the documentation?"

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard in my life. There's no evidence for the presence of explosives. Your comment is nothing more than a naked attempt to cover up your cherry picking and lying.

"...How were the software sims validated? Why won't NIST provide the visualizations from the sims so experts can examine them? You do know what GIGO means, right? A software sim is only as accurate and honest as its input data."

The visualizations from the modeling software are included in the NIST Report--your continued lying notwithstanding. Furthermore, NIST's scientists and engineers ARE THE EXPERTS--you fucking idiot. The modeling software is VALIDATED by rigorous testing. The annealing data itself was VALIDATED by the fire trajectory models.

In any case, who cares what you think? You've never used simulation software and you know nothing about the subject; thus, the dishonest bleating of a high school dropout isn't worth the ASCII characters and bandwidth you waste to post it.

"...I ignore the software sims because they are not confirmed by physical samples or by empirical tests."

The software simulations were required precisely because there were no samples that survived the conflagration or they were lost in the clean up effort--you fucking idiot.

And, once again, you're lying. You ignored the software simulations for the same reason that you ignore all the remaining evidence that proves your conspiracy theory is false. You cherry pick the data for the same reason any lying propagandist ignores relevant data: You're lying and misleading the reader.

GutterBall, Barrett's link to SLC doesn't work. The "original source" doesn't exist. So you are relying on the claims of a Jew-hating nut-job who cites a source that doesn't exist?

There's evidence for the presence of explosives--testimony of 118 first responders who thought they saw or heard explosions. Testimony of Van Romero and Ray Downey and Chief Turi.

The visualizations for the sims have not been released. http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-80268.html

So you think we should just let you tell us NIST are the experts and we aren't so just shut up.

You don't have to be an expert to notice that NIST did not model the collapse, and so they ignored all of the important issues--speed, symmetry, totality, pulverized concrete and molten iron.

Where do you get the idea that I dropped out of high school?

Yes, the samples were "lost" in the "cleanup". In other words, as I've been saying, the evidence was destroyed--leaving NIST perfectly free to reverse-engineer their sims. Oh, no building collapse? No problem, take out a couple more columns, make the fires a bit hotter, make them last a bit longer. We aim to please.

UtterFail, the visualizations were not released, as reported by NCE.http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-80268.html

You want us to think the NIST guys are experts and therefore we should just let them tell us anything. You don't seem to recognize that the computer sims are reverse engineered:what, no collapse? OK, well there must have been more columns taken out than we thought. And the fires must have been hotter and longer lasting than we thought.

UtterFail, I never swore anything. My position has always been to refuse to comment on anonymous internet entities, because if I ever denied affiliation with any, then inevitably in the future failure to deny would be considered an admission. I thus will not discuss anonymous internet entities.

Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett think I'm punxsutawneybarney, because they think there's only one person in the world who's wise to them. Willie employs dozens of sock puppets and sometimes tries to adopt the identities of others such as Manny Badillo.

GutterBall, "full of data and information provided by computer simulations" is not the visualizations for the simulations, which NIST has refused to provide despite requests, as reported in NCE.

WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation

1 November 2005

WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCEI ...

UtterFail, you lie. I never swore anything. I consistently have refused to discuss anonymous internet entities because if I make a practice of denying affiliations, then if I ever fail to deny that will be taken as an admission. Willie Rodriguez uses sock puppets, and also likes to try to pass himself off as Manny Badillo.

Ian, let's stick to the important issues of NIST's refusal to provide the visualizations from its sims "despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers", according to the engineering journal NCE and the fact that GutterBall lied blatantly about this fact.

Changing the subject to anonymous internet identities is a favorite tactic of Bushbots. For some reason unintelligent people find such speculations very interesting.

"...according to the engineering journal NCE and the fact that GutterBall lied blatantly about this fact."

Lying again, shit-for-brains?

The following document describes the models:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2BChap9-11Draft.pdf

The following document describes how the models were validated:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf

The reason models were not released--you stupid ass--is simple: The modeling data is proprietary. Without NIST's software the data itself is meaningless. The remaining models are the property of private companies.

None of this, however, invalidates the models.

Thus, we have more proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. Worse, you won't do the research that's necessary to find the truth, because to do so would invalidate your idiotic theories.

UtterFail, first you call me a liar for citing NCE's complaint that "WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers...."

I guess we should leave it up to the "leading structural and fire engineers" as to whether they can use the visualizations or not. What was proprietary? Are not LS-DYNA and ANSYS commonly used around the world?

The 9/11 "truth" movement, moreover, has neither the resources or the expertise to make a valid demand for the models. Thus, it should surprise no one that NIST refuses to turn over their models and software to a group of charlatans, lunatics and wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.

NIST has every reason to ignore the 9/11 "truth" movement, and until the troofers can establish one iota of credibility, NIST will continue to ignore them.

UtterFail, the issue was not validation but the release of visualizations. I pointed out that the visualizations had not been released, and at 13:42 you admitted that they have not been released, despite calling me a liar for saying so.

The NCE "leading structural and fire engineers" calling for the release are not wild eyed conspiracy theorists.

You claimed that the visualizations could not be released because they were proprietary. FDS software is a free download here: http://fire.nist.gov/fds/downloads.html

"...UtterFail, the issue was not validation but the release of visualizations. I pointed out that the visualizations had not been released, and at 13:42 you admitted that they have not been released, despite calling me a liar for saying so."

Another example of the goat molester babbling while he hasn't a clue of what he's talking about.

There are no "visualizations"--you moron. That's why I put the word in quotation marks.

"...You claimed that the visualizations could not be released because they were proprietary."

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. There's a difference between software and the models.

And likewise, the software is useless without the models. The FSD software was released for independent fire studies. NIST has never released their models, because most of the models are private property which is owned by third parties.

Once again, we can see that the goat molester can't read, and he ignores anything that proves he's wrong. And to add insult to injury, he stuffs words in my mouth, twists what I've written beyond recognition, and lies about everything I've written.

So your claiming that the details of NIST's "validated" sims are so super secret nobody's allowed to see them. Then how did they get validated? How did Weidlinger, which was a hired gun for Larry Silverstein's law suits, get them? Or did they validate them without getting the visualizations?

You think this is ok? NIST claims they know how the buildings fell because their super secret computer programs told them, and no it's none of our business how they got their answers?

"...So your claiming that the details of NIST's "validated" sims are so super secret nobody's allowed to see them."

No, that's not what I said--you fucking moron.

Once again we can see the goat molester stuffs words in my mouth, twists what I've written beyond recognition, and lies about everything I've written.

FAIL

"...Then how did they get validated? How did Weidlinger, which was a hired gun for Larry Silverstein's law suits, get them? Or did they validate them without getting the visualizations?"

What part of "the models are proprietary" don't you understand--you cretin?

Have you ever heard of something called a non-disclosure agreement?

Well, that's your answer, 'tard.

Weidlinger Associates, MIT, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and Purdue University are trusted entities with the resources and expertise to validate the models. In addition, they signed the non-disclosure agreements and were granted access to the models.

9/11 "truthers", on the other hand, are anything but trusted entities with the resources and expertise to validate the models. Thus, the troofers are ignored by NIST.

GutterBall, how come the NCE "leading structural and fire engineers" can't get the models?

You are obfuscating and squirting ink. You deny that the visualizations are secret, and then you keep telling me they're secret.

Why do they need a non-disclosure agreement--so they won't reveal that NIST cheated on the sims? Why do the sims have to be secret? You keep telling me they're not secret, but they are secret, and the reason they're secret is because they're secret.

"...GutterBall, how come the NCE "leading structural and fire engineers" can't get the models?"

I don't have the slightest idea, nor do I care. All I know is Weidlinger Associates, MIT, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and Purdue University are trusted entities with the resources and expertise to validate the models. They signed the non-disclosure agreements and were granted access to the models.

"...You are obfuscating and squirting ink. You deny that the visualizations are secret, and then you keep telling me they're secret."

I did no such thing, liar. I told you there are NO "visualizations", THAT'S WHY I PUT THE WORD IN QUOTATION MARKS FROM THE BEGINNING--you cretin.

Once again, we can see that the goat molester can't read, and he ignores anything that proves he's wrong. And to add insult to injury, he stuffs words in my mouth, twists what I've written beyond recognition, and lies about everything I've written.

"...Why do they need a non-disclosure agreement"

Because the models are proprietary--you cretin. They are NOT NIST's property.

"...GutterBall, how come the NCE "leading structural and fire engineers" can't get the models?"

I don't have the slightest idea, nor do I care. All I know is Weidlinger Associates, MIT, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and Purdue University are trusted entities with the resources and expertise to validate the models. They signed the non-disclosure agreements and were granted access to the models.

"...You are obfuscating and squirting ink. You deny that the visualizations are secret, and then you keep telling me they're secret."

I did no such thing, liar. I told you there are NO "visualizations", THAT'S WHY I PUT THE WORD IN QUOTATION MARKS FROM THE BEGINNING--you cretin.

Once again, we can see that the goat molester can't read, and he ignores anything that proves he's wrong. And to add insult to injury, he stuffs words in my mouth, twists what I've written beyond recognition, and lies about everything I've written.

"...GutterBall, how come the NCE "leading structural and fire engineers" can't get the models?"

I don't have the slightest idea, nor do I care. All I know is Weidlinger Associates, MIT, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and Purdue University are trusted entities with the resources and expertise to validate the models. They signed the non-disclosure agreements and were granted access to the models.

"...You are obfuscating and squirting ink. You deny that the visualizations are secret, and then you keep telling me they're secret."

I did no such thing, liar. I told you there are NO "visualizations", THAT'S WHY I PUT THE WORD IN QUOTATION MARKS FROM THE BEGINNING--you cretin.

Once again, we can see that the goat molester can't read, and he ignores anything that proves he's wrong. And to add insult to injury, he stuffs words in my mouth, twists what I've written beyond recognition, and lies about everything I've written.

"...Why do they need a non-disclosure agreement"

Because the models are proprietary--you cretin. They are NOT NIST's property.

"...GutterBall, how come the NCE "leading structural and fire engineers" can't get the models?"

I don't have the slightest idea, nor do I care. All I know is Weidlinger Associates, MIT, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and Purdue University are trusted entities with the resources and expertise to validate the models. They signed the non-disclosure agreements and were granted access to the models.

"...You are obfuscating and squirting ink. You deny that the visualizations are secret, and then you keep telling me they're secret."

I did no such thing, liar. I told you there are NO "visualizations", THAT'S WHY I PUT THE WORD IN QUOTATION MARKS FROM THE BEGINNING--you cretin.

Once again, we can see that the goat molester can't read, and he ignores anything that proves he's wrong. And to add insult to injury, he stuffs words in my mouth, twists what I've written beyond recognition, and lies about everything I've written.

"...Why do they need a non-disclosure agreement"

Because the models are proprietary--you cretin. They are NOT NIST's property.

"...GutterBall, how come the NCE "leading structural and fire engineers" can't get the models?"

I don't have the slightest idea, nor do I care. All I know is Weidlinger Associates, MIT, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and Purdue University are trusted entities with the resources and expertise to validate the models. They signed the non-disclosure agreements and were granted access to the models.

"...You are obfuscating and squirting ink. You deny that the visualizations are secret, and then you keep telling me they're secret."

I did no such thing, liar. I told you there are NO "visualizations", THAT'S WHY I PUT THE WORD IN QUOTATION MARKS FROM THE BEGINNING--you cretin.

Once again, we can see that the goat molester can't read, and he ignores anything that proves he's wrong. And to add insult to injury, he stuffs words in my mouth, twists what I've written beyond recognition, and lies about everything I've written.

"...Why do they need a non-disclosure agreement"

Because the models are proprietary--you cretin. They are NOT NIST's property.

The models were VALIDATED by Weidlinger Associates, MIT, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and Purdue University. NIST didn't hire anyone to defraud the government. As usual, when you're proven wrong, you resort to your worthless opinion and unsubstantiated allegations like a common charlatan.

Why do YOU need to know. I understand that people in fire engineering and fire safety should know. And I would expect that if anyone in this field had concerns about the fires on the top of the roofs they would do their due diligence to research the issue and make strides to prevent future events.

But as for you, despite your inflamed ego and lack of self-perspective, you don't need to know the answer and NIST doesn't owe you an answer.

TH, some analysts of the towers' explosions claim that some debris shows an initial upward trajectory. I've never had any reason to study the issue.

Greg, the recently released video is the first that I've heard of any fires on the roof, though I have seen dramatic ejections of smoke from the roof, which I supposed represented localized roof failure immediately before the antenna drop.

I imagine that your fire engineering experts have not heard about fires on the roof.

Your "If NIST isn't concerned, it's none of your business" attitude is anti-democratic. The government belongs to the people, and in a democracy it owes them the truth.

NIST has shown a pattern of a lack of interest in the most important questions, they have framed the issues in a dishonest manner in order to dodge inconvenient questions, and their very secretive attitudes suggest a cover up.

You can't explain how the fire got on the roof, and that's why you're trying to squelch discussion of the question.

Greg, the recently released video is the first that I've heard of any fires on the roof, though I have seen dramatic ejections of smoke from the roof,

You still fail to realize that you are not important. It doesn't matter what YOU have just seen.

which I supposed represented localized roof failure immediately before the antenna drop.

You are an expert of nothing, so what you suppose doesn't matter.

I imagine that your fire engineering experts have not heard about fires on the roof.

Why you don't you call a few and find out instead of assuming everything.

Your "If NIST isn't concerned, it's none of your business" attitude is anti-democratic. The government belongs to the people, and in a democracy it owes them the truth.

You have no reading comprehension. My comment doesn't mean that anything is being kept from you. If experts in a field don't feel that anything needs to be investigated it doesn't really matter if you feel there should be an investigation.

NIST has shown a pattern of a lack of interest in the most important questions

Questions that are only important to you. No one else.

they have framed the issues in a dishonest manner in order to dodge inconvenient questions

According to you.

and their very secretive attitudes suggest a cover up.

They aren't being secretive about anything.

You can't explain how the fire got on the roof, and that's why you're trying to squelch discussion of the question.

Why aren't you paying attention? It's not important for you and I to be able to explain how the fire got to the roof. It doesn't help anyone if we do or do not know.

Wow, Greg. what a bunch of authoritarian crap! Not just "move along folks, nothing to see here," but "Evacuate Now! You have no right to see! Experts will tell you all you need to know! Shut up!"

Information is certainly being kept from us. NIST refuses to release the sim visualizations, they have been withholding photos and videos, and they refused to provide the specifics of their analyses.

It's important for me to know that NIST has examined the rooftop fires, considered them in its probable collapse sequence, and what their explanation for them is.It is important for me NOT to accept your principle that they will tell me if it's important and if they don't tell me it's not.

Information is certainly being kept from us. NIST refuses to release the sim visualizations, they have been withholding photos and videos, and they refused to provide the specifics of their analyses.

And you know this how?

It's important for me to know that NIST has examined the rooftop fires, considered them in its probable collapse sequence, and what their explanation for them is.It is important for me NOT to accept your principle that they will tell me if it's important and if they don't tell me it's not.

Information is being kept from us. NIST refuses to release blah blah blah they have been withholding photos and videos blah blah blah they refused to provide blah blah blah

I could point out that NIST openly solicited public input while they were still working on the report. Where were you then, Brian? Where was AE911Truth? Where was anyone in the Truth movement?

Or I could remind you that when NIST did release hundreds of photographs that you were specifically demanding on this blog, you did everything but poke your eyes out not to look at them.

But you know what? I wish NIST would release its models. I wish they'd take every single thing they used to produce the report they did. put on CD-ROMs and mail it to you.

Because you couldn't even install the fucking software, much less do anything with it.

That you think these materials would be of any value to you, much less that you could correct the National Instititue of Science and Technology, is an astronomical amount of arrogance on your part.

Not just "move along folks, nothing to see here," but "Evacuate Now! You have no right to see! Experts will tell you all you need to know! Shut up!"

You know why I take NIST's word for it, Brian? Because they studied science for 20 years and I didn't. I don't have the wherewithal to correct them. I don't have the knowledge to analyze an incredibly complex mechanical model that runs on an incredibly complex piece of software, nor do I possess the basic knowledge to make any sense out of its findings. Unlike you, I don't pretend to.

I don't live in the fantasy world you do, where Google is the training chair in the Matrix, where you can just type in a subject and acquire a lifetime of knowledge in 30 seconds. It isn't, and you can't. Though you do try.

If I don't question the scientific findings, it's not because I'm DURR AFRAID OF TEH TRUTH DURRRR, it's because I'm wise enough to defer to people who know what the fuck they're talking about. You should try it sometime, Brian.

Do you think maybe you should update your sources. This very discussion started because of information since released by NIST.

And would you please, for the love of sanity, explain why you need said information? How is it going to help you vote? You don't vote for NIST members. There is no reason for you to have the data.

You need to stop basing your ideals on the premise that there is a coverup regarding 911. There isn't! NIST reason for waiting or refusing to release data has nothing to do with a conspiracy, you have no proof of a conspiracy, and you have no need for the data they have.

You lie. NIST has not released the visualizations, they have refused to release the details of the analyses, and there's no reason to believe they have released all the photos and videos. Why would they keep them secret for 7 years if not to go through them and lose the embarrassing ones?

I have a need for the data because as a citizen in a democracy I have a right to the data.

There is a coverup on 9/11. NIST is withholding information, the 9/11 Commission refused to answer 91% of the widows' questions, the testimony of Behrooz Sarshar is released only in ridiculously redacted form, any number of important witnesses have never been questioned under oath, and officials refuse to debate and defend their positions.

You lie. NIST has not released the visualizations, they have refused to release the details of the analyses, and there's no reason to believe they have released all the photos and videos. Why would they keep them secret for 7 years if not to go through them and lose the embarrassing ones?

No one cares.

I have a need for the data because as a citizen in a democracy I have a right to the data.

If you can explain what you would do with this information, then I would agree with you. If you repeat anything as retarded as "I have the right to know" you will confirm you have brain damage.

There is a coverup on 9/11.

Only in your head.

NIST is withholding information,

No one cares.

the 9/11 Commission refused to answer 91% of the widows' questions,

Those poor widows. How do you get by during the day?

the testimony of Behrooz Sarshar is released only in ridiculously redacted form, any number of important witnesses have never been questioned under oath, and officials refuse to debate and defend their positions.

Greg, thanks for fulfilling the usual pattern here. First you make bald assertions that are not true, then when shown that these assertions are not true you lie by reasserting them, and when provided with further information refuting your claims, as you walk the plank and reach the end you shout "No one cares!" as you fall to the waiting sharks.

You guys are not interested in truth. You have an irrational emotional attachment to the authority represented by official reports.

You lied by implying that my sources were out of date. NIST has not released the sim visualizations, has not released the analyses data, and so what if they throw us a video now and then after seven years?

If my brother owes me ten dollars and he says "I paid you yesterday" because he gave me a nickel, he lies even if it's technically true that he paid me a nickle yesterday.

The information is not out of date simply because it's old. The analyses details have not been released-in fact Mr. Brookman was informed that their release would "jeopardize public safety".

The sim visualizations have not been released, and the widows' 273 questions have not been answered.

The widows need their questions answered so they can be confident that the charter of the 9/11 Commission to provide "a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks" has been fulfilled.

Engineers need the sim visualizations and the analysis details so they can check NIST's work for competence and honesty.

Your "The people who need to see it have seen it' attitude is authoritarian and anti-democratic.

Greg, your authoritarian principle that I must be "special" to have access to information backing up government reports on public events is anti-democratic.

Ron Brookman is a licensed structural engineer. He needs to see the details of the analyses so he can check them. He needs to check them because he has put his professional reputation on the line by expressing doubts about their validity.

The "leading structural engineers" at NCE need to see the visualizations of NIST's sims so they can comment on their validity.

When will these people who need to see the information see the information?

Hey Brian, remember that time you told me that 91% of the widows questions were unanswered and I said no and you asked if I had a different percentage and I said 0% unanswered and you got all upset and started squealing?

That was classic.

As was the time you said I bury stuff in "girly spam".

We should make an archive of Brian's classic posts. You're truly one of a kind, Brian.